Obama flips again: gay marriage
posted at 8:51 am on July 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Barack Obama has reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a half-twist to the Left. After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he opposes California’s initiative to ban gay marriage — and that he would use federal law to end such efforts:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”
“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
His letter to the Alice B. Toklas GLBT Democratic Club will effectively toss traditional marriage under the same bus as his opposition to FISA reform and his pledge for public financing. However, his allies on the Left will enjoy the reversal on this position much more than they did with his other flip-flops, even if they have to wonder how long this new position will last.
Once again, voters have to ask themselves what Obama is thinking. I’m no big fan of the gay-marriage ban, but we’re getting past the point of the issues themselves and what all of these reversals mean about the candidate. There are only three possibilities for why Barack Obama has had to change his mind on almost every policy he has mentioned in this campaign:
- He’s a liar who says what each audience wants to hear.
- The election debate has changed his perspective on every issue.
- He has no clue on any of the issues.
Only the second reflects any positive quality, that of open-mindedness, but it also carries with it the underlying unreadiness of a man who has only three years of national political experience for the Presidency. Assuming the best of intentions, Obama has no firm stands on any principle or policy. That doesn’t even recommend Obama as a Senator, let alone a President. If option 2 is the case, he needs to set out this election while he makes up his mind.
The most disturbing aspect of this new reversal is Obama’s sudden abandonment of federalism. What happened to letting California decide on the public recognition of marriage? This twist reveals a little more of what we can expect from a President Obama — a further aggrandizing of power in Washington DC and a reduction of the scope of authority for state and local communities.
Rumor has Team Obama bolstering its outreach to evangelicals. How long before this reversal gets reversed?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
*that should be quoted above from “…because it…” up to 1:59pm
JetBoy on July 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM
I think it is all three. Obama is a liar with no clue and his perpective changes everytime a subject comes up.
Terrye on July 1, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Here’s one explanation (I found someone who agrees with part of my earlier comment) He also has a significant warning about probable changes to the political infrastructure both within Congress and the Democratic Party. The institutionalizing of progressivism.
Obama’s Leftist Armies
Food for thought for everyone thinking of sitting-out this election.– ragnell
Ragnell on July 1, 2008 at 4:34 PM
uh I can back up my statements…from the netherlands, where they have experience with gay marriage.
link
gay marriage hurts traditional marriage, which breaks up families, which leaves kids fatherless…and the resulting problems we’ve seen before.
you have nothing to dispute what I say. you never posted any of your stats you said you would
you’re just a pathetic lying troll.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
right4life,
Thanks for the link, and, believe me, I understand how tiresome it can be to have people talk down to you and accuse you of all manner of intolerance and inhumanity, presuming on no basis but their own pretensions, that they know better or more than you do about this subject, but it really doesn’t help the cause to attack them back in personal terms.
Bridgetown has already shown herself open to dialog - and she’s the kind of person that people on our side of this issue should be working with, not against.
As for JetBoy, I think he’s wrong, and may not realize how offensive and presumptuous some of his statements have been. I don’t know if he could be made to see things differently. From my reading of previous submissions of his, I think he could at least be brought to the point of understanding why some of us strongly believe there’s a lot more at stake here than the pseudo-nuptial celebrations of a relatively few happy same sex couples, and that opposition to the re-definition of marriage doesn’t rest on hatred of gays or disgust with the gay lifestyle.
So, maybe you can take it a little easier, not flame the regulars?
CK MacLeod on July 1, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Please do not remind this idiot that after the primaries he is supposed to move toward the center for the generals.elvis on July 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Really… good going Hot Air, keep up that exquisite reporting… Your burden of proof is just so overwhelming that I can’t even see it!
…
Opposing same sex-marriage does not mean you need laws to make your opposition clear.
Rejecting a State Proposition does not mean that the state can’t decide whatever it wants to do regarding the issue.
Rejecting a State Proposition does not mean that you don’t support State rights.
PresidenToor on July 1, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Well aren’t we the little name callers, you didn’t kick a hole in the wall when you threw that tantrum did you. Now settle down and answer this, I want to be sure I understand you, because all you did was call names.
So let me get this right…you say that Jesus did not love a whore?
right2bright on July 1, 2008 at 6:08 PM
maybe Obama is actually thinking about coming out of the closet ala McGreevy….
elduende on July 1, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Just ignore him/her — the fact is that right2life claims everyone has an agenda BUT him. (Not true)
And In every thread like this he/she gets involved in, its the same tripe, the same claims of being a victim while simultaneously tossing out personal insults. (verifiable, over and over and again)
Youre trying to deal with someone that has some deep seeded hate, thats not going to be swayed. Just move on.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:12 PM
I don’t think its possible with him…I’ll try to honor your request, but I usually don’t start the flame wars, and I don’t mind being called names, you’re known by your enemies as well as your friends.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:15 PM
never said I don’t have an agenda….do you ever tell the truth?
go ahead and post your proof. looks like you’re lying again.
oh yeah more of the same left-wing talking points…anyone who opposes ANYTHING that the left wants is hateful…yadayadaydayd
can you evovle some new lines?
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM
sounds like a case of projection…like the last time you lied about what I wrote, and made false accusations. do you ever tell the truth?
why don’t you try english 101?
you really are a piece of work.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I’ve noticed its the same 3
stoogesclowns, sorry thats an insult to the stooges, following me around.why don’t you 3 get a life? and if you want to engage me, try arguing the issues…but that would require independent thought…and I know how hard it is for you!!
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM
go ahead and post your proof. looks like you’re lying again.
are you writing from another planet?
This is YOU:
and this is YOU:
I could care less what you think, but if youre going to try to defend yourself, maybe you ought to look a page back before shooting off your hole.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I think its great that your criticize homosexuals. I criticize Christians — SO WHAT.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I see I have to spell everything out for people like you!!
I don’t mind being called names, and I don’t mind responding….but you seem upset when I respond, but its OK for you to call me names, I just can’t respond…
I do not ever claim to be a ‘victim’ so to be more specific, show me where I claim to be a ‘victim’…
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:30 PM
you see actually thats incorrect, I don’t criticize homosexuals, I criticize their agenda. to my knowledge I have never named a gay person to criticize.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM
thats just the truth. can’t handle the truth? do you need references?
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:32 PM
ok, so why are you complaining about what I say?
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM
actually, YOU are the one that ought to provide proof:
where exactly have I ever called you a name? Do tell. Try hard now
As for My proof.
lets see, your claims of a gay sharia, your repeated claims of a final solution for christians, which you have not only lobbed at me but others within other comments…
It goes on and on ..
you are by far, most self-victimized Christian I think I have ever had the displeasure of having to read.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM
ok, so why are you complaining about what I say?..
trolling, and Im not biting.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:37 PM
you really are obsessed with me….
sorry I don’t remember if you have called me names, most likely though…I don’t really care that much about an individual to remember their history…
do you like keep a dossier on me?? do you think you’re some kinda spy?? 007 type a guy??
as far as that statement its true. The gay agenda is to impose a gay sharia law, where christians are second-class citizens, unable to criticize homosexuals, and practice their religion in any way that homosexuals object to.
and yes, I had a post, I don’t remember his/her name, don’t really care, who told me that quote: people like me don’t have a future….
what was I to make of that statement?
another lie. I haven’t claimed to be victimized…I’m just smart enough to see what going on around the world, and put 2 and 2 together…get a clue.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:41 PM
I object to being lied about, so I confront the lies. but I’m not obsessed with you, as you are with me.
get a life.
you cannot argue the issues with me, you have to rely on personal attacks. typical left-wing wacko (yeah I called another name….and I enjoyed it too)
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:43 PM
ok, so why are you complaining about what I say?..
the only one complaining is you.
Your comment history shows that not only are you unable to treat people that you disagree with with respect, you barely, and I do mean, barely, treat people that DO agree with you with respect.
Need proof? Go through your own comments.
Im giving good advice to people that might not realize what a baiter you like to be.. You take care now.
your_worst_enemy on July 1, 2008 at 6:46 PM
yeah go back through my comments…you are obsessed with me…and you’ll find out that in 99% of the time, I merely respond to others calling me names….but people like you are NEVER upset with them…oh no….your ‘moral outrage’ is directed towards conservatives.
truth is you’re just hate conservative christians, and since you can’t argue the issues, you just try to shut up those you disagree with
I don’t have to warn people about you, its easy to see what kind of troll you are.
keep following me around!! since you don’t have a life!
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Obama is a liar, i don’t need to be told that, i already know..
Everyone knows this, its a fact.
Chakra Hammer on July 1, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Getting cramped under that bus.. ain’t it?
44Magnum on July 1, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Bottoms up…so to speak.
SouthernGent on July 1, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Weapons of Mass discussion’s list of flip flops is up to bout’ 26……….prdiction is list top out into the 40’s
http://massdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/06/collection-of-obama-flip-flops.html
deception in islam is a day to day thing….like breathing
http://www.muslimhope.com/DeceptionInIslam.htm
sbark on July 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM
The Obama Yin Yang Flip Flop
Classic Obama double talk.
Someone should write a book called The Tao of Obama. The Yin is the Flip. The Yang is the Flop. Both the Flip and the Flop are contained within the same answer. There is no separate flip and flop (as we saw with previous flip-floppers like John Kerry).
With both the Flip and Flop being intrinsic within the statements Obama makes, he manages to satisfy both opinions at once, although to accomplish this he needs a complicit press.
In an earlier Obama YinYang FlipFlop we read headlines like “Senator Obama Ditches Trinity United Church”. This pleased the people who were calling or him to publicly disown and disavow the church.
His leaving the the church was the Yin (as reported).
The intrinsic Yang was the rest of the statement: The reason Obama gave was that he was leaving the church because he was fed up of his membership being used against him and he felt sorry for the church’s name being dragged through the mud.
This pleased his more radical black supporters.
A critical press would have pounced on such obvious, cynical duplicity. They would have said “Senator, you should be leaving Trinity United because it is a crass, ugly haven for black supremacy - not because it is bad for your campaign”, but as I said the yinyang flipflop relies on a complicit media.
In the case of gay marriage, look for the yin and its intrinsic yang. The flip and the flop.
The floating evangelical reads the headlines reporting that Obama “VOTED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE”. The flip.
The gay demographic gets the rest of the statement and sees that Obama opposed a California bill *NOT* because he opposes gay marriage, but because it should be legal in federal law. The flop.
See how many examples of the Obama Yin Yang Flip Flop you can spot.
uptight on July 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I thought I’d add a clear, simple example of a YinYang flipflop. Not Obama’s words, but just to illustrate the principle.
I hate abortion.
Abortion is upsetting for anyone it touches, but women should be given the choice.
I am voting against that pro-abortion law
The proposed law does not give women enough choice. Ideally she should be able to terminate up to the 400th trimester.
uptight on July 2, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Here is how it went down.
I made a statement about Jesus loving whores.
You called me a lying piece of trash.
So I asked if you believed Jesus loved whores or not.
And you responded by saying:
So you dodged the question, never stated the reason for your first attack on me, and I believe you were a little confused about the last time…you asked for any gay group that would denounce another gay group, I listed two that attacked NAMBLA, and you went berserk because you didn’t spend 3 minutes doing research. Therefore you accused me of lying by quoting a groups position, I know you, confuse many people.
So now I ask you, since you are the one who initiated the attack, “Did Jesus love a whore?”.
A little problem with you, since you know He did, that would mean for you to be a Christian you would have to do the same…actually love someone who was committing a sin, like you think gays are. Therefore, to be a Christian, you have to love the gays, or do you hate the gays because they are committing a sin…WWJD?
Hence your anger, you can’t answer, so you lash out…good try, but everyone is now sitting back and laughing at you.
Thanks for the entertaining posts.
And you’re welcome for the lesson on debate…
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Mary Magdalen was never referred to in the New Testament as a prostitute. Jesus cast seven demons out of her but it doesn’t
say what kind they were.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Jesus also told those whose sins he forgave to go and sin no more.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 1:29 AM
It is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin.
sgt_rich on July 2, 2008 at 1:42 AM
I’ll go with 1 AND 3. I’ll go with 2 if you add at the end “when necessary.”
abcurtis on July 2, 2008 at 8:07 AM
But He loved her first, that’s the key, before she “sinned no more” He loved her. Hardly anything is more significant, she did not have to do anything to receive His love. He commanded her, and others to sin no more, but it wasn’t a condition of His love.
That’s the dilemma that Christian’s find themselves faced with. They need to love unconditionally, they may hate the sin (I hate that saying), but they are commanded to show love and compassion to all.
That is the corner right4life has found himself in, he wants to be a Christian, but he has to give up his hate, he has to learn to love his gay brothers…he can’t serve two masters, Christ and hate are the two masters in his life, it’s his choice.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Maybe Mary was just a smoker…
*
So you don’t think Christ loved a prostitute either? Interesting Christians you are…
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 8:26 AM
you ’sir’ are a liar. this isn’t the first time you’ve lied about me. and then to top it off, you sit in judgment of me, like the hypocritical pharisee you are.
never asked that, again you are a liar.
and I find your obsession with me, a bit troubling. please stop stalking me.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 8:34 AM
If you don’t like someone responding to your retorts, don’t insult them. You insult, when someone defends, you call it stalking, another indication you have a difficult time debating a point. You are the one who attacked me, I posted, you called me a liar, without any substance to the retort…so who is the stalker, who has the anger?
Everyone is a liar according to you, if they don’t agree with you, they are a liar.
You yell, stomp, call names, but never answer a question.
Here let me ask you again:
Did Christ love a whore?
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM
you can give it, but you can’t take it. wimp.
you are a liar, proven many times over. you twist what I say, because its in your nature. you can’t argue facts, and logic, so you have to resort to lies and distortion…just like your ‘father’!
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Still can’t answer, who is the “wimp”?
That’s a good one:
Stop, listen, hear that sound….that’s everyone laughing at you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They are pointing at the screen and laughing at you, yes you…you are afraid to answer, and others are the wimp….HAHAHAHAHHAHA! I guess I’m not lying about you not answering…am I.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM
take off your tin-foil and get back on your meds.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
ps: I’m done casting pearls before swine.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I have just received three emails from people laughing at you, stop now…repent, and you may be able to post without people snickering at you.
They are reading what you write and talking about you behind your back, whispering about how strange you are…what an outcast you are…how lonely you must be…how maybe you need a firm hand to guide you…a firm manly hand to help you…don’t resist, he will be there to help you…he will give you love you never had before…some would say a forbidden love…but the kind that you need, desire, seek…don’t fight it, you know you want it…
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Why is an effort divisive?
An effort is the open civil action of citizens to express themselves. This effort asks fellow citizens to vote whether they agree on Constitutional changes.
If the majority disagrees, the effort will stand as an opinion of a minority, nothing more.
If a majority agree, the State Constitution will be amended and State laws will have to be written and enforced according to the will of the people
Obama does not like people expressing themselves legally if he deems their legal expression to be divisive
I think stuffing the newly invented state of gay marriage down the throat of society is highly divisive. It is discriminatory to all the other non marital arrangements like single persons, and people living with dogs and cats who are their best buddies yet denied health care by the employer.
Obama can kiss my albatross. Who died and made him King?
entagor on July 2, 2008 at 11:05 AM
not just king, MAHDI…
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Jesus never excused sin even though he loved everyone. Yes, we are expected to love those who are lost but we are not expected to embrace the lifestyles of those who see nothing wrong with what they are doing.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
for the gay rights types, ‘tolerate’ means embrace. unless you enthusiastically support everything they want, you are hate filled
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I don’t support everything they want. The new education bill in CA created even more animosity towards their agenda.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Exactly, that was the point (and He loved them before they repented) I was hoping someone would make. Jesus gave us a lesson in humility, love, and, patience Instead of wildly throwing out names and casting derogatory remarks, just a simple statement of fact. Loving someone, showing compassion, does not necessitate embracing that persons position. You may tolerate it, with the hopes and prayers that God will work in their life, but that is between God and them.
I think the ones who are afraid to “love” the gays, often are afraid that they may be attracted to that lifestyle. If someone was comfortable with their sexuality, comfortable with their moral fiber, someones else’s lifestyle wouldn’t be such a threat.
Let’s hope these intolerant types don’t walk around with stones in their pocket.
*Eexcuse me, is that a stone in your pocket or are you attracted to me…thump.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM
You make really lame arguments. Sorry, but you do. If Mary had chosen not to follow Jesus but to go back to whatever she had been he would not have condoned that choice. She would not have been His follower.
I don’t like people who beat dogs, that does not mean I am afraid that I will beat dogs. I don’t like people who smoke (they smell bad) and that does not mean that I am afraid that I may start smoking. To say that people reject a certain lifestyle or behavior because they are afraid they will be caught up into it is asinine.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 12:33 PM
that sums up every post right2Bdumb has written.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I haven’t heard about that, could you post some info?
thanks
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Thank you!
this is insane, but shows the lengths that the gay ‘rights’ lobby will go to to ram their lifestyle down our throats..
and who ‘interprets’ what is negative? oh yeah some gay rights wackos, no doubt.
another example of the gay sharia law that will be imposed upon us by the ‘tolerant’ gay people…pathetic.
its time to take your kids out of the CA publikkk skkkools. this is whats coming to the rest of the country
Arnold is such an a**
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM
First of all read my post, all of the words, and do you see the word “all”, or “every”?
Where did I say different…but she still would have been loved. That’s the point, unconditional love.
Apparently you also missed that above quote that I stated.
You are basically arguing with your own beliefs.
If you believe in unconditional love
If you believe you can love someone without embracing their beliefs
Then we are in agreement…and you will retract the words lame (but you won’t, because of pride).
Now, about the obsession of some people and others sexuality. I distinctly remember a member of congress who passed bills, and was one of the most adamant congressman against homosexuality…and lo and behold, he were one.
Preachers, Pastors, Priests, railing against that sin, but embracing it behind closed doors.
“Thou protest too much” ever hear that quote?
You don’t know of such things? If you have, then I guess you will retract the words asinine (but you won’t because of pride).
Please, don’t fall into the trap of calling people names, instead of stating facts…you end up like you know who, and you don’t want to be him.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I described your arguments, I did not call you a name. Again, you argue fallaciously. A person who preaches against something while at the same time doing that which he is preaching against is a hypocrite. That is not the same as saying that someone who is against something and is not doing that which he is against is afraid of being drawn into it. The apostle Paul wrote that if someone in the church chooses to engage in behavior that is inappropriate, or more strongly sinful, that person is to be kicked out of the church until they repent. There is a limit to the amount of compassion that a Christian is to have towards someone who engages in inappropriate behavior. When Christians do reach out to gays they are accused of hatefulness because they are trying to change them. So there really is nothing to be gained unless one feels that this is a specific calling given them by God.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Saying someone is asinine is what? Oh well, you must have been talking just about ideas, and not a person…
No problem, you are creating an argument where there is none, but he never said stop loving them, or only love them if they “change”. Once again we are probably in agreement.
Well then don’t be a Christian, because whatever group you reach out to you will be hated, that is biblical. But compassion and patience, is what we pray for, not toss away when the going gets tough, or someone doesn’t listen.
If you are a Christian, it is not your choice, the gains may never be seen by you. You think of it as only a total win, or a loss…it isn’t about you (sorry to burst your pride again), it is about what God wants from you, and what you are willing to give.
Which is why I am often so intolerant of people who start off posts with name calling, and not facts.
No we have a difference of opinion, you do not think anyone is afraid of being drawn into a lifestyle they find wrong, and I think a number of people use their anger as a defense not to be drawn in. It is a difference of opinion. (you do come across as angry, this is just a posting on a blog).
So we come down once again to agreeing on most everything, and one difference of opinion.
Amazing how that works…
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 1:46 PM
don’t worry sonny boy, on your best day you can’t even come close to me! only in your dreams!
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 1:48 PM
saying you are assinine is the truth…and it hurts, doesn’t it?
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM
If telling you that your argument is asinine is calling you a name than telling me I have pride is calling me a name. So perhaps I should call you a name, that name being hypocrite.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 1:54 PM
OUCH!! TRUTH HURTS!!
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM
you know whats funny is that right2bdumb portrays himself as a christian, yet supports gay marriage.
so tell me does anyone think Jesus would support gay marriage?
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM
They shouldn’t but obviously some people do. I just don’t get it.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM
they want a god in their own image.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
take it outside, children
uptight on July 2, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Wow, that was mature advice to give people having a conversation on a blog. I am SO impressed!
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM
again ouch!! I like you’re style!
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM
your style…sorry.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM
I can never understand why some people think that because they don’t like what’s being discussed they have some moral authority to try and silence the discussion. Why not just stay out of it or contribute to it? That’s what most of us do.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I don’t know that he spoke about it specifically. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew do have him making a point of correcting Moses on divorce. Should we adapt the law to follow the teaching of Jesus on divorce?
dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM
actually He did.
Matthew 19:
people like to say ’since Jesus didn’t mention homosexuals, He didn’t have a problem with it’ this is ludicrous. He came to fulfill the law…and the law is clear…and Christians believe He is God Almighty…He (Jesus) was the One in the burning bush, He is the Angel Of The Lord…and He is the One who inspired the Bible. the Law, and the Prophets are inspired by Him. same as Romans 1. Paul was giving the word of God, inspired by Jesus.
yeah we’d be better off.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 2:52 PM
The divorce laws used to be closer to what Jesus said; only for infidelity. It would be better. The Judaic law allowed men to divorce their wives for any reason, Jesus condemned that practice. Our society would be better if people took their marriage vows more seriously.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Sorry right4life I didn’t realize you were still here.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 2:58 PM
don’t worry about it! I enjoy your comments!
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM
First of all, I do not support gay marriage, never have never will, that is the problem with people interjecting themselves into a conversation they know nothing about. So the poster who stated that just doesn’t have their facts straight. If they think different then they have 3 years of my HA postings to back up their allegations.
Here is the passage you are looking for: 1 Corinthians 6:9 or a tougher one Romans 1: 18-32. Timothy 1:9-11 broaches the subject also, as well a Leviticus 18-22-29 for you OT lovers.
Christ never asks for “man’s” law to reflect God’s law. Since man is flawed even if they did adapt God’s law, man would not be able to enforce it. The divorce laws and marriage laws are left to the state. Christians should know what God’s laws are and try to live to those standards.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
where do you get such inane drivel at? the whole reason Jesus was upset at the pharisees is because they added to, and changed THE LAW, which God gave to them to abide by.
newsflash: man’s law DOES reflect God’s law..where do you think laws came from? maybe the judaic law??? hmmmm?? do you think maybe we got our murder laws, from ‘thou shalt not murder’???
yet in two separate threads you attack those who oppose gay marriage, with the same idiotic drivel about being ‘hateful’ because you dare to oppose a gay supported position.
but I know expecting logic from you is a bit much…
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM
You blabber, but you never come up with a link or a copy of the post you blabber about.
I repeat, I have never been for gay marriage, I have dozen of postings arguing against gay marriage. You made the accusation, now come up with a post where I advocated or defended gay marriage.
You won’t, you can’t, and you will just let the wrongful accusation stand. It will be typical.
As for the first part, I was speaking to a person that I know is intelligent, but I will try to help you.
Let me break it down for you. Because we only have a few words to post, some write in shorthand. Of course our laws are based on God’s, but we cannot adapt his exact laws, his exact commandments and properly enforce them. You think gays should be ostracized, other Christians think they should be loved.
We are sinful by nature, so any law we try to impose will have flaws (which is why so many churches have problems), so we can’t use the exact laws because our interpretation is from man’s viewpoint, not God’s.
Should we have a death penalty? Some faith based would say no, others would say yes…should we use the Old Testament or the New Testament for enforcing the law? So we should stone the perverts, or only the ones without sin get to stone…therefore perverts are set free.
See, that is why Jesus stated that we should follow the laws of the land, and never commanded that the states follow God’s laws.
Individuals follow God’s laws, independent of what the laws of the states are. The state does not dictate morality, it may embrace it, fund it, promote it, but it can’t force it. That comes from individuals.
Now if you can get over your hate, you will reflect on these points, and accept them as fairly accurate.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM
as you have with your many lies about what I have said.
you think this is some ‘deep thinking’? this is obama-like blather.
now you’re putting words in Jesus’ mouth. which is a serious sin. post your scripture, since the Judaic (ie God’s law) law was given for man to follow.
yeah it can…thats what the laws are all about. forcing behavior. and punishing violations of that standard.
the ‘hate’ is another of your many lies. again why is everyone who opposes the gay agenda hateful?
those points are incorrect, illogical, and show a very shallow intellect.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM
please post where I have ever stated that. you cannot, another lie about my position, because you cannot deal with what I post in any other manner.
I have opposed gay marriage on policy grounds, what it would do to marriage, the family, and freedom of religion. I don’t bring religion into it, but people like you do…to express your hatred of christians.
you, and the other gay marriage supporters, cannot deal with that, and have to accuse me, and anyone who opposes gay marriage, as hateful. and you have to make up lies about me, like the above.
you say you oppose gay marriage, but you speak the language of its supporters, and use their tactics. if it walks like a duck, and quacks…you get the picture.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Didn’t infer that you did. I was more interested in the questions raised by right4life’s points in his post:
1.) What do we know based on the recorded words of Jesus and should the fact that he chose to speak on certain topics and not on others be considered?
2.) To what extent should the laws of the United States be conformed to the specific teaching of the OT or the NT?
dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Are Christians a religion, I guess you do bring it in, want more examples?
Ostracize:to cast out from social, political, or private favor.
So all of your posts were designed to include the gays into your social, political, or private arena? Or would you rather have them separate from your family life?
Thank you, once again I have shown you the path…school is out for today, you are welcome for the lesson.
BTW, I could have posted many more showing you wanting gays out of your life or ostracizing.
And thanks for admitting that the state can force morality on you, at least we know you are weak in spirit and we will pray for you and your family that they do not succumb to the states forcing you to be immoral.
That was a great step in humility, most would never admit they are weak in spirit against the government.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Oh, I forgot about your challenge of following the Government.
Try Romans 13 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities…”
Now isn’t that what Jesus did, did he not submit himself to Caesar (render unto Caesar what is Caesar) and his laws? He would have been set free if he would have gone to the real King, but he obeyed the rules of the government.
So now I have instructed you in many things today…yet your pride will not acknowledge it (in fact you may even continue your attack). However, days, weeks, months, or years from now, you will take what I have written and embrace it…just like you have taken other things I have written and learned from them.
You’re welcome, it is my gift to you.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Excellent questions (btw, I was not inferring to you about gay marriage, just jabbing at the other guy).
Your first one is really complex, because so many issues we are facing now, did not exist 2,000 years ago. But we can extrapolate (and hope we are right), perversion is perversion, addictions are addictions (you can’t serve two masters), fidelity is fidelity, unconditional love is that. But giving your cloak to a stranger in need? Death penalty” That’s a tough one, that is why I don’t think a minister can be a politician (and vice-verse), otherwise we would have open borders. That is the brilliance of separation of church and state. The two serve different purposes, but there is an overlap, naturally.
That is why personal attacks can be so wrong, you don’t know what is in someones heart when they are defending an issue. Christ (thankfully) gives us a huge latitude in what we want to defend, or promote, or fight against (I guarantee you can find two faithful, intelligent, pastors on the opposite side of the Iraq war). He has drawn the guidelines, and they are broad in some areas (like state punishment for wrongful acts), and strict in others, how you treat your spouse, or how important it is to be a good steward of money.
The old testament is a tough one, the ten commandments are there for sure; but the punishment for wrong, the fact that women who are on their period can’t worship, etc. was more practical for then. The whole system has changed, we have realized that Mary (both) could have been very much a disciple, as much as the men. They were the only ones really faithful and loyal, but that time period would not have accepted, so why even try. Christ changed it all, the legalistic church was dismantled, and a church built on a relationship with God was created. And people like Luther brought the bible to the masses (as sinful as he was).
Our U.S. laws are based on the Church laws, the Order of Orange, from the Dutch Reformed Church, and others greatly influenced our laws.
But should we directly draw our laws from the pages, no, simply because whatever we write, interpret, can’t be, by definition perfect (and every pastor has a different interpretation). Use them as a guideline. The bible is not only the word of God, it is also a practical book on life and a guiding book on laws. That is why we have elected officials, let them decide those things, within the walls of my house was where the real laws were established. Sunday, a day of worship, and then the rest of the week apply those beliefs.
Render unto Caesar which is Caesar, and I will try to elect officials that reflect my Christian values. Knowing that all will fall short.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 5:53 PM
He’s a lying, smooth, snake oil salesman who will say or do anything to get into the White House. Anything. To anyone, anytime, anywhere, any way. After he gets in…all bets are off. He’ll rule us with an iron fist and his ignorant, know nothing puppet Congress will grant him his every wish. We are so screwed.
UnEasyRider on July 2, 2008 at 6:53 PM
you really are blindingly stupid. don’t you understand the difference between using scripture to oppose gay marriage, and worrying about the effects of gay marriage on the christian religion???
I mean seriously, you take the cake for stupid.
debating you is a like debating a rock, but I will continue to make you look like the moron you are…but you’re too stupid to even know how stupid you are!
you definately take the booby prize!!! duhhhhhhhh
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 6:53 PM
and whats even funnier, is you think you’re smart!!
thanks for the laughs, loser.
right4life on July 2, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Agree with everything, but the iron fist, I think he will have a liberal fist up his you know what, and he will do their bidding.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Okay, can’t some skilled Photoshopper out there modify Obama’s presidential seal to include a pair of flip-flops?
glendower on July 2, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Jesus primarily ministered to the Jews. The Jewish law was clear on sexual behavior. If He had wanted to change that He would have used this time to do so. The Pharisees tried to trap Him on the divorce issue and His views were even more harsh than what was accepted. The fact that Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles confirmed the Jewish view of sexual behavior strongly suggests that there was no consensus among the apostles who lived with Jesus that those views were open to discussion.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 9:05 PM
I realize that Paul did not live with Jesus but he ministered with those who did.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 9:06 PM
Oh my. Somebody actually reading the Book.
How are we going to have fun if you do that? :)
platypus on July 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Rose, you’re wonderful.
On to important things. The reason that Christ did not speak on homosexuals is two-fold. One is that there were no homosexuals - it was a death penalty offense (thus no recidivism). Two is that nobody asked him what he thought about it (as far as we know).
Keep in mind two points. One - there is no such thing as a homosexual there is only a person who performs homosexual acts. Two - there is no such thing as gay marriage because marriage is a design that is self-contained and capable of unassisted reproduction of its kind (called a family).
And one last point is that none of this depends on religion or spiritual truth - it is readily observable with the five physical senses.
Homosexual behavior is both deviant and a manifestation of arrested maturity being acted out sexually.
platypus on July 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Careful, you are going to be accused of hate. The problem I have is when people say that Christians should accept these lifestyles as an act of compassion. If the compassion doesn’t lead to change it becomes acceptance. People should not be forced to accept that which they find unacceptable. We should be allowed to form our own opinions based on religion or science or whatever without the government saying we don’t have the right to. Freedom of association without the government interfering. Freedom to teach our children that certain behavior is inappropriate. The new education law in CA denies us those freedoms.
Rose on July 2, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Paul, like Jesus, was more restrictive about divorce than the law of Moses. Certainly, remarriage or sex after divorce was wrong. Wouldn’t Jesus’s word on divorce supercede whatever the other’s said?
dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 11:16 PM
You have a right to teach your children that homosexuality is wrong in the same way that you can teach them that gambling, drinking alcohol, eating meat, smoking, having an abortion, or working on Sunday is wrong. They’d need to recognize that some tax-paying citizens don’t share the same point of view.
dedalus on July 2, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »